NYT Shows Anti-Trump Animus

The first term of the Supreme court is wrapping up with a lawsuit that epitomizes the nature of the person occupying the Oval Office. . . . [T]he justices will hear oral arguments . . . in a challenge to the legality and constitutionality of President Trump’s travel ban, which indefinitely bars 150 million people, a vast majority of them Muslim, from entering the United States. . . .

The government’s response to the courts is, in short, butt out. Mr. Trump can exclude whomever he wants in order to protect the country from attack, and no judge may second guess him. That’s an astonishing claim of unchecked executive authority. It also contradicts the structure of federal immigration law, which is the province of Congress. No one is saying that the president is powerless to protect the nation from attack. What we are saying is that that he must do so without violating the law or the Constitution. . . .

[A]nyone with a passing awareness of American politics knows what is at the root of the travel ban: Mr. Trump special animus against Muslims. . . . – Will the Court Stand Up to Donald Trump? — The New York Times, The Editorial Board, 4/23/18 [Link]

Fact Check: The Times makes two arguments against the Trump travel ban, that it is based on “animus” and that it usurps the authority of Congress. The animus argument is a disturbing trend in American law. It claims that a statute or a policy may be overturned if judges determine that its author is motivated hostility toward a particular group, usually one favored by politically correct bias. It matters not, in this theory, if the law or policy has a perfectly sound legal basis. Essentially it is an attempt to replace the rule of law with ideology and political expediency.

In any case, the travel ban hardly proves that Trump hates Muslims. Certainly he has noticed the connection between Islamic dogma and terrorism. What honest and knowledgeable person hasn’t? But that’s hardly proof of animus. The travel ban permits travel from most Muslim countries. It covers only five Muslim countries, and two that are non-Muslim. The president believes these countries pose particular problems.

Does he have the legal authority to his ban. The Times is correct in saying that federal immigration law is “the province of Congress.” But its editoralists fail to mention that Congress has delegated the president the authority that Mr. Trump has exercised. The relevant statute is Section212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (f). It states:

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The wording is clear. The president may exclude “any aliens or any class of aliens” that he deems appropriate. There is no wording about whether or not he might have “animus” toward them.

What is most interesting about the Times’ claim against Trump’s authority is its blatant hypocrisy. Some years ago, Congress voted not to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the DACA category. Ignoring the intent of Congress, President Obama ignored the constitutional separation of powers and simply decreed passage of DACA. Prior to that he often admitted that he didn’t have the right to do so. Has this usurpation of authority bothered the Times? Not at all. It maintains that Obama had the “authority to set immigration-enforcement priorities.” And besides that, said the Times, Obama had to act in the absence of congressional action because it was “the only humane choice.”

One thing is plain for sure. The hypocrites who write editorials for the Times have a special animus toward Donald Trump—and any sensible proposal to reform our dysfunctional immigration policies.

Little John

Permanent link to this article: https://www.aicfoundation.com/nyt-shows-anti-trump-animus/

Social Media

Stay Informed: Subscribe to blog postings

Sign Up for Our E-Newsletter

Sign Up form

Email:

Support AIC Foundation

Bequests to AIC Foundation

Leaving money or property to AIC Foundation can be accomplished in the same way as leaving it to relatives or friends. Although there are many variations, bequests generally can be divided into two classes, specific and residual: A specific request is a will provision which designates a particular piece of property or sum of money to the recipient. Example: “I bequeath to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc., a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA, one hundred shares of XYZ Company stock [or the sum, of $........] for its general purposes.”

A residual bequest disposes of the part of the estate remaining after all other claims and bequests are taken care of. Example: “I bequeath all [one half] of the rest, residue and remainder of the property owned by me at my death, real and personal and wherever situated, to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc. a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA for its general purposes.” Both specific and residual bequests can include contingent bequests to provide for an alternative disposition of the inheritance if the primary beneficiary is no longer living when the will is implemented. Example: “ I bequest to my sister Jane Doe the sum of $......, but if she does not survive me, then I bequeath the same to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc. a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA for its general purposes.”

Our Mission

As part of our educational mission, AIC Foundation encourages free and open expression of differing and responsible viewpoints. Views expressed in posts, articles linked, etc., are those of the authors and not necessarily of AIC Foundation. AIC Foundation is non-partisan, and does not lobby for or against any specific proposed legislation.